1. If a case is assigned for full hearing, the time for oral
argument is limited to twenty minutes for each side; for the motion calendar,
the time is limited to five minutes each side. See
P.B. § 70-4.
2. Counsel are urged to provide the Appellate Court with a minimum of 48 hours’
notice in the event an appeal scheduled for full argument is to be withdrawn.
See also P.B.
§§ 63-9,
85-2,
85-3.
3. Cases are scheduled for a specific time, not necessarily in the order listed.
Counsel must identify themselves to the Clerk in the Courtroom at least 15
minutes before the scheduled time of argument.

Counsel must identify themselves to the Clerk in Court not later than 15 minutes
before the scheduled time of argument.

AC31673 FBT
CADLE COMPANY
v.
APPEAL FROM PROBATE OF THE TOWN OF TRUMBULL

DAVID D’ADDARIO ET AL.
v.
APPEAL FROM PROBATE OF THE TOWN OF TRUMBULL
For Appellant Cadle Company: Kroll, McNamara, Evans & Delehanty, LLP
For Appellees David D’Addario and Lawrence D’Addario, Co-Executors of the Estate
of Francis D’Addario:
David Rubin

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR DISPOSITION WITHOUT ORAL
ARGUMENT

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY,
WHY THIS APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY ONLY SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A
FINAL JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE HEARING IN DAMAGES TOOK
PLACE. SEE STROINEY V. CRESCENT LAKE TAX DISTRICT, 197 CONN. 82, 84-86 (1985);
PINNIX V. LAMORTE, 182 CONN. 342, 343-44 (1980). SEE ALSO BALF CO. V. SPERA
CONSTRUCTION CO., 222 CONN. 211, 212 (1992).

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY,
WHY THE DEFENDANTS’ JULY 12, 2010 AMENDED APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED IN
LIGHT OF THE TRIAL COURT’S AUGUST 24, 2010 ORDER VACATING THE JUNE 7, 2010
JUDGMENT OF STRICT FORECLOSURE. SEE AHNEMAN V. AHNEMAN, 243 CONN. 471, 483
(1998).

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY,
WHY THIS APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S INTERLOCUTORY RULING DENYING THE
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PROVIDE TRANSCRIPTS, SUBPOENAS, INVESTIGATIVE AID, AND
CO-COUNSEL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT. SEE STATE V.
FIELDING, 296 CONN. 26, 36 (2010); STATE V. CURCIO, 191 CONN. 27, 31 (1983).

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY,
WHY MODERN MATERIALS CORPORATION’S APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE MODERN
MATERIALS CORPORATION IS NOT A PARTY TO THE UNDERLYING ACTION, AND, THEREFORE,
IT HAS NO RIGHT TO BRING A DIRECT APPEAL PURSUANT TO GENERAL STATUTES § 52-263.
SEE STATE V. SALMON, 250 CONN. 147 (1999).

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY ARE ORDERED TO
APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS TO
REID & COMPANY, LLC, BECAUSE ELEANOR REID CANNOT REPRESENT IT; SEE EXPRESSWAY
ASSOCIATES II V. FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORP. OF CONNECTICUT, 34 CONN. APP. 543,
CERT. DENIED, 230 CONN. 915 (1994), AND GENERAL STATUTES § 51-88; AND WHY THE
APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS TO ELEANOR REID, TO THE EXTENT THAT SHE HAS
FILED IT ON HER OWN BEHALF, BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE UNDERLYING
ACTION. SEE STATE V. SALMON, 250 CONN. 147, 148-49 (1999).

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY,
WHY THE PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S MAY 26, 2010 JUDGMENT SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE FIVE DAY APPEAL
PERIOD MANDATED BY GENERAL STATUTES § 47a-35. SEE HUD/BARBOUR-WAVERLY V. WILSON,
235 CONN. 650, 657 (1995).

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY ARE ORDERED TO
APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE DEFENDANT TAYLOR’S APPEAL FROM THE
DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO OPEN THE STIPULATED SUMMARY PROCESS JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED AS MOOT IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT TAYLOR HAS VACATED
THE PREMISES AT ISSUE. SEE CITY OF NEW HAVEN V. KONSTANDINIDIS, 29 CONN. APP.
139, CERT. DENIED, 224 CONN. 920 (1992).

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED DEFENDANT ARE NOTIFIED
TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THIS APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT. SEE STATE V. O’CONNELL, 36 CONN. APP. 135 (1994).

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTERS, COUNSEL AND SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO
APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE DISPOSED OF,
PRACTICE BOOK § 85-1, AND WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED, PRACTICE BOOK §
85-2, FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE DOCUMENTS LISTED OR TO PURSUE THE APPEAL WITH
DILIGENCE. FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THIS HEARING AS ORDERED WILL SUBJECT COUNSEL AND
SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES TO THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, MONETARY SANCTIONS, FINES, AND/OR PROHIBITION FROM APPEARING BEFORE
THIS COURT. SEE GENERAL STATUTES § 51-84 AND PRACTICE BOOK §§ 85-1, 85-2.

(9) AC31763
BRUCE ZOLLO
Lori Welch-Rubin, Special Public Defenderv.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Office of the Chief State’s Attorney
Petitioner-appellant’s brief due on or before August 25, 2010.

(10) AC31581
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Office of the Chief State’s Attorneyv.
ROBERT ELECK
William B. Westcott
Defendant-appellant’s brief due on or before September 7, 2010.

THE FOLLOWING MATTERS ARE PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON THE COURT’S OWN
MOTION CALENDAR OR FOR DISPOSITION ON THE 85-1 CALENDAR AT THE APPELLATE COURT,
75 ELM STREET, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2010. WITH THE
PERMISSION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, AND PURSUANT TO THIS COURT’S SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY, THE MATTERS ARE SUA SPONTE ORDERED TO BE HEARD BY VIDEO CONFERENCE.
THESE HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2010 AT A TIME TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE APPELLATE COURT. NOTICE OF THE TIME FOR THE VIDEOCONFERENCE
HEARINGS WILL ISSUE AT A LATER DATE. SEE PRACTICE BOOK §§ 62-1(B), 60-2, 60-3.

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY ARE ORDERED TO
APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT
IN LIGHT OF PUBLIC ACTS 2010, NO. 10-58, § 1. SEE CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY
AUTHORITY V. FOIC, 19 CONN. APP. 489, 493-94 (1989).